Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] ( and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified ) is granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant ( and/or other person ). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
             (In a letter dated 8 September 2022 the appellant's solicitors notified the respondent that the appellant had indirect contact with his children but that he had completed 10 years continuous residence (page 144)).
         The Judge's findings as to paragraph 276B have infected his consideration of proportionality in allowing the appeal under section 117B(6) 2002 Act.
         Permission was granted on renewal by UJT Macleman who stated that "the grounds show arguably the FtT has gone wrong on the length of the continuous lawful residence ( Afzal & Iyieke [2023] UKSC 46 ). The UTJ observed that the anonymity order warranted reconsideration.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.